Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, once a member of President Trump’s inner circle of advisers, has pleaded guilty in a deal with the Special Counsel investigating foreign meddling in the 2016 elections in which he admits to lying to the FBI about his back-channel conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Flynn’s plea signals the former top adviser to President Trump is now cooperating with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. A brief statement released by Mueller’s team Friday morning does not say what information Flynn has provided the government as part of the deal, but people familiar with the agreement told ABC News Friday he has made a decision to assist investigators.

The general told confidants about his decision to plead guilty in the last 24 hours, according to people close to Flynn, who say the former adviser feels President Trump has abandoned him and has agreed to answer questions about the president or anyone else.

Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI about the nature of his conversations with then-Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition. Those conversations led Russian officials to temper their response to increased U.S. sanctions, according to the charging documents. The charge means Flynn could face up to 5 years in prison.

Flynn becomes the latest and most-senior Trump associate to face charges in Mueller's probe and is scheduled to appear in court at 10:30 a.m. He has already been processed at the FBI Washington Field Office, according to FBI officials, where he was fingerprinted and photographed.

Flynn's lawyer meets with members of special counsel's team, raising specter of plea deal

Kushner met with special counsel earlier this month, conversation focused on Flynn

Flynn had initially resisted cooperating with the investigation, according to people close to the retired general, but he has been facing mounting legal debts and plans to sell his house to help defray costs.

He only recently learned the full scope of the charges he could potentially face. Last week, Trump lawyers received calls from Flynn’s lawyer Robert Kelner, alerting them that he could no longer participate in information exchanges with other possible Mueller targets, the first public indication that a plea deal was in the works.

On Monday, Kelner was spotted exiting a meeting at Mueller’s offices in Washington, ABC News reported.

Flynn is a decorated military officer who once headed the Defense Intelligence Agency and, after leaving government, spoke frequently at Trump campaign rallies. He began facing scrutiny after it was learned he took payment to attend a Russian television event, at which he appeared seated next to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

That scrutiny only increased after he took over as Trump’s national security adviser. He was ultimately forced to resign after just a few weeks on the job after it was revealed that he misled Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about his meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Flynn initially denied that he discussed U.S. sanctions placed on Russia with Kislyak, but transcripts of Flynn and Kislyak’s phone calls reviewed by Justice Department lawyers showed otherwise.

Flynn was paid over $500,000 by foreign clients for consulting work and speaking fees – including contracts he allegedly failed to list on applications for security clearances and financial disclosure forms. He also only belatedly disclosed lobbying work his firm engaged in on behalf of the Turkish government.

Trump reportedly attempted to persuade the FBI to drop its investigation into Flynn’s conduct. In a Feb. 14 meeting at the White House, Trump reportedly told then-FBI Director James Comey to “let this go.”

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Trump told Comey, according to a memo Comey wrote afterwards, which was later described by the New York Times. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

On Oct. 30, two members of Trump's campaign staff, former campaign chair Paul Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates, were indicted on 12 counts brought by Mueller's team related to work done prior to joining the Trump campaign, including conspiracy against the U.S., conspiracy to launder money and serving as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal.

That same day, it was also revealed that a third Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty earlier in the month to making false statements to FBI agents probing his attempts to arrange a meeting between Russian officials and the campaign.

First, Papadopoulos pleads guilty and admits he was colluding with Russians for the Trump Campaign. Then Manafort and his aide are indicted. Now, Flynn tips and goes state's evidence. Who is he giving evidence on? There ain't many above him...Trump Jr., son-in-law Kushner, AG Jeff Sessions...or the fat enchilada himself.

sb wrote:maybe i dont understand it all, maybe he will go down. i dont know what muller has up his sleeve,i dont know what trump has done

if trump is guilty then he is guilty, im not suggesting that he should get a free pass like Clinton did.

no amount of saying no, will change it if it he is guilty

Well, we're all just on-lookers. But it's looking pretty good so far.

on this we agree

it is looking good

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

A transition advisor to Fake President Trump wrote in an email weeks before his inauguration that sanctions would make it difficult to ease relations with Russia, “which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him.” In emails obtained by the New York Times, transition advisor K.T. McFarland sought to coordinate with other members of the Trump transition team in the wake of sanctions intended to punish the Kremlin for interfering in the U.S. presidential election. “If there is a tit-for-tat escalation Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown U.S.A. election to him,” McFarland wrote to Thomas P. Bossert, who currently serves as Trump’s homeland security adviser. Bossert—who forwarded the exchange to future National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, future Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, future senior strategist Stephen Bannon, and future press secretary Sean Spicer, all of whom have since left the administration—urged other transition officials to “defend election legitimacy now.” The White House said McFarland’s email was intended to express the opinion of Democrats, not herself.

If they wish to squeal about the total conspiracy in hopes of a lighter sentence, how fortuitous for a grateful nation.

breaking the law could mean any one of thousands of things.

but its clear you have avoided answering because you know that those two are unrelated to trump, you know that they are stand alone cases.

the association with trump is unconnected to their charges

What you want to see is the entire conspiracy, right now, in a single ensemble. What you are getting is the piecemeal development of it. You are like the one watching the jigsaw puzzle as the picture comes into view. You keep pointing to a corner and saying, that part is missing; or you point to another part and say, the house is unfinished.

Yes, it's a work in progress, but there are enough pieces to say that's a tree, and that's a house and that's a street. The chances that it is not a complete puzzle are growing thinner and thinner. It's all one big picture. Papadoploulos reports of meeting with a Russian professor, who tells him they can throw the election. We know about the June 9th meeting in Trump Tower, where the Russians say they have hacked material (in violation of the CFAA) and Trump Jr. says, "I love it!" The telephone calls of Flynn to Kislyak are evidence of the same conspiracy...he is promising the quid pro quo part of the conspiracy agreement: that they will lift the sanctions Obama has just imposed.

All of this is going on, and you keep touting the missing pieces. If there is nothing illegal about the conversations between Flynn and Kislyak, why does Flynn lie about it...exposing himself to a 5-year prison sentence? Why does Papadopoulos lie to the FBI as well? Lies are told for a purpose. What is their purpose?

The lies are evidence of a cover-up; the cover-up is evidence of the crime; the crimes collectively amount to a huge conspiracy, generally constituting racketeering under RICO.

but its clear you have avoided answering because you know that those two are unrelated to trump, you know that they are stand alone cases.

the association with trump is unconnected to their charges

What you want to see is the entire conspiracy, right now, in a single ensemble. What you are getting is the piecemeal development of it. You are like the one watching the jigsaw puzzle as the picture comes into view. You keep pointing to a corner and saying, that part is missing; or you point to another part and say, the house is unfinished.

Yes, it's a work in progress, but there are enough pieces to say that's a tree, and that's a house and that's a street. The chances that it is not a complete puzzle are growing thinner and thinner. It's all one big picture. Papadoploulos reports of meeting with a Russian professor, who tells him they can throw the election. We know about the June 9th meeting in Trump Tower, where the Russians say they have hacked material (in violation of the CFAA) and Trump Jr. says, "I love it!" The telephone calls of Flynn to Kislyak are evidence of the same conspiracy...he is promising the quid pro quo part of the conspiracy agreement: that they will lift the sanctions Obama has just imposed.

All of this is going on, and you keep touting the missing pieces. If there is nothing illegal about the conversations between Flynn and Kislyak, why does Flynn lie about it...exposing himself to a 5-year prison sentence? Why does Papadopoulos lie to the FBI as well? Lies are told for a purpose. What is their purpose?

The lies are evidence of a cover-up; the cover-up is evidence of the crime; the crimes collectively amount to a huge conspiracy, generally constituting racketeering under RICO.

like i said, you have taken on a fevered edge to your postings, its like you really really really really want me to believe you.

I dont.

you're light on details, some "Russian professor" , "breaking the law", if i wanted cagey evasion i would just ask didge what time it was.

you're just falling back on soundbites and its boring as all hell now.

ive said my piece - NO IMPEACHMENT FOR TRUMP.

one of us is going to have his nose rubbed in it, end of the day you're not sure which is why youre the one with a plan B, and its your country that will rip itself apart.

even if you win,you lose.

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

sb wrote:like i said, you have taken on a fevered edge to your postings, its like you really really really really want me to believe you.

Well, every time you post is an opportunity for me to repeat the evidence and explain the case. Your impressions are not important.

There's an old poem that I recall used to hang on the wall of a breakfast coffee shop in Berkeley:

As you ramble on through life, brother,Whatever be your goal,Keep your eye upon the doughnut,And not upon the hole.

I win the argument; you win the impressions. I'm OK with that.

That's a dumb poem, what if it's a jam doughnut?

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

We have jam/custard/chocolate doughnuts over here too, Quill. They have no hole and are filled with one of the three fillings I've just mentioned and covered in sugar, usually. They're a little similar in style to those delicious treats from heaven, Krispy Kreme donuts

Would've been faster to post a picture really.

_________________“Some people will never like you because your spirit irritates their demons ”― Anon.

eddie wrote:We have jam/custard/chocolate doughnuts over here too, Quill. They have no hole and are filled with one of the three fillings I've just mentioned and covered in sugar, usually. They're a little similar in style to those delicious treats from heaven, Krispy Kreme donuts Would've been faster to post a picture really.

eddie wrote:We have jam/custard/chocolate doughnuts over here too, Quill. They have no hole and are filled with one of the three fillings I've just mentioned and covered in sugar, usually. They're a little similar in style to those delicious treats from heaven, Krispy Kreme donuts Would've been faster to post a picture really.

No those are pastries.

Did you see the pics I posted? All have holes.

In the US your doughnuts have a hole. Over here we call them ring doughts and although they can have a topping, they can't have a filling. Here, we use the same recipe dough, deep fry the same, but not as a ring, and fill them with a nozzle, anything from jam, custard, cooked apple or chocolate:

We also make long ones, split them and fill with cream, same recipe doughnut, same cooking method

Made them all Quill, the dough is the standard dough recipe, whichever one you make.

Surprised you didn't come across them in Scotland, they love doughnuts.

Damn you all. Now I want doughnuts. We have an awesome independent shop in town that run a very close second to the yumminess that is Krispy Kreme, although I prefer Dunkin Donuts’ jam and Boston cream ones.

Fine. I just drooled all over my phone. Phooey.

_________________Do you think you'll be the guy - to make the Queen of the Angels sigh?

eddie wrote:We have jam/custard/chocolate doughnuts over here too, Quill. They have no hole and are filled with one of the three fillings I've just mentioned and covered in sugar, usually. They're a little similar in style to those delicious treats from heaven, Krispy Kreme donuts Would've been faster to post a picture really.

No those are pastries.

Did you see the pics I posted? All have holes.

Well we on this side of the pond invented the language so when we say a jam doughnut is a doughnut it's a doughnut.

If you septic tanks want to mangled the language you crack on.

Your poem is shit.

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

Well we on this side of the pond invented the language so when we say a jam doughnut is a doughnut it's a doughnut.

If you septic tanks want to mangled the language you crack on.

Your poem is shit.

Ah, but the doughnut is a Dutch American food, originating in New York. So we claim the right to name it, and the name goes to the ringed confectionery. One of the earliest mentions of "doughnut" was in Washington Irving's, A History of New York, from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty (1809):

Washington Irving wrote:Sometimes the table was graced with immense apple-pies, or saucers full of preserved peaches and pears; but it was always sure to boast of an enormous dish of sweetened dough, fried in hog’s fat, and called dough-nuts, or oly koeks: a delicious kind of cake, at present scarce known in this city, excepting in genuine Dutch families.

The first written mention of doughnuts was in an appendix of a book of American recipes. As one anthropologist says: "By the mid-19th century, the doughnut looked and tasted like today's doughnut, and was viewed as a thoroughly American food."

Well we on this side of the pond invented the language so when we say a jam doughnut is a doughnut it's a doughnut.

If you septic tanks want to mangled the language you crack on.

Your poem is shit.

Ah, but the doughnut is a Dutch American food, originating in New York. So we claim the right to name it, and the name goes to the ringed confectionery. One of the earliest mentions of "doughnut" was in Washington Irving's, A History of New York, from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty (1809):

Washington Irving wrote:Sometimes the table was graced with immense apple-pies, or saucers full of preserved peaches and pears; but it was always sure to boast of an enormous dish of sweetened dough, fried in hog’s fat, and called dough-nuts, or oly koeks: a delicious kind of cake, at present scarce known in this city, excepting in genuine Dutch families.

The first written mention of doughnuts was in an appendix of a book of American recipes. As one anthropologist says: "By the mid-19th century, the doughnut looked and tasted like today's doughnut, and was viewed as a thoroughly American food."

Brits should stick to cold Haggis, or cabbage and boiled mutton.

Huh.

Your poems still shit

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

Try a slow cooker with lamb. Smear mint sauce on top of lamb, plop in 20 peeled cloves of garlic, sprinkle in some rosemary sprigs, then pour over a half bottle of decent red and cook on low for 6-8 hours. Serve with mashed potatoes, peas and roasted carrots.

_________________Do you think you'll be the guy - to make the Queen of the Angels sigh?

Try a slow cooker with lamb. Smear mint sauce on top of lamb, plop in 20 peeled cloves of garlic, sprinkle in some rosemary sprigs, then pour over a half bottle of decent red and cook on low for 6-8 hours. Serve with mashed potatoes, peas and roasted carrots.

Try a slow cooker with lamb. Smear mint sauce on top of lamb, plop in 20 peeled cloves of garlic, sprinkle in some rosemary sprigs, then pour over a half bottle of decent red and cook on low for 6-8 hours. Serve with mashed potatoes, peas and roasted carrots.

I love the slow cooker. I'll try it next lamb.

Enjoy. It’s sooooooooooo good this way.

_________________Do you think you'll be the guy - to make the Queen of the Angels sigh?

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

What are you talking about? Look over on the Trump Vent Thread. Last night, despite a wonderful football game on TV, I wrote a brilliant (if I do say so) thesis on Theodor Adorno's authoritarian personality thesis, and its applicability to the erratic behavior of Donald 'pussy-grabber' Trump.

Despite the intervening 14-hours, you have failed to respond. There are times when you don't respond to my more brilliant works, I am hurt. But at other times, like this, I totally understand your fear. I mean, what can you say?

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

What are you talking about? Look over on the Trump Vent Thread. Last night, despite a wonderful football game on TV, I wrote a brilliant (if I do say so) thesis on Theodor Adorno's authoritarian personality thesis, and its applicability to the erratic behavior of Donald 'pussy-grabber' Trump.

Despite the intervening 14-hours, you have failed to respond. There are times when you don't respond to my more brilliant works, I am hurt. But at other times, like this, I totally understand your fear. I mean, what can you say?

You've not heard??

Oh dear oh dear oh fucking dear

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

Cass wrote:Damn you all. Now I want doughnuts. We have an awesome independent shop in town that run a very close second to the yumminess that is Krispy Kreme, although I prefer Dunkin Donuts’ jam and Boston cream ones.

Fine. I just drooled all over my phone. Phooey.

I like any kind of doughnut....dipped in tea or coffee. Yeah, it's a dugusting habit but I'm not ashamed.

_________________“Some people will never like you because your spirit irritates their demons ”― Anon.

Cass wrote:Damn you all. Now I want doughnuts. We have an awesome independent shop in town that run a very close second to the yumminess that is Krispy Kreme, although I prefer Dunkin Donuts’ jam and Boston cream ones.

Fine. I just drooled all over my phone. Phooey.

I like any kind of doughnut....dipped in tea or coffee. Yeah, it's a dugusting habit but I'm not ashamed.

Me either. High five sister!

_________________Do you think you'll be the guy - to make the Queen of the Angels sigh?

Tommy Monk wrote:It's surprising the amount that has been talked about doughnuts here on this thread about Trumps alleged 'collusion with "The Russians"' etc... as all I keep thinking about is...

WAFFLE!!!

No tommy, we won that discussion. So we turned to food. A natural segway. And Cass' recipe for lamb sounds delicious. It's already paid off.

you won??

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

trump is still POTUS, you lost

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

What are you talking about? Look over on the Trump Vent Thread. Last night, despite a wonderful football game on TV, I wrote a brilliant (if I do say so) thesis on Theodor Adorno's authoritarian personality thesis, and its applicability to the erratic behavior of Donald 'pussy-grabber' Trump.

Despite the intervening 14-hours, you have failed to respond. There are times when you don't respond to my more brilliant works, I am hurt. But at other times, like this, I totally understand your fear. I mean, what can you say?

While you were doing that, Stench was in his bathroom , masturbating over a video of Milo interviewing Katie Hopkins. He couldn't work out who aroused him more.

_________________I have never met a caring sharing and compassionate Tory.Tories and far right wingers. All liars and only it it for themselves.

What are you talking about? Look over on the Trump Vent Thread. Last night, despite a wonderful football game on TV, I wrote a brilliant (if I do say so) thesis on Theodor Adorno's authoritarian personality thesis, and its applicability to the erratic behavior of Donald 'pussy-grabber' Trump.

Despite the intervening 14-hours, you have failed to respond. There are times when you don't respond to my more brilliant works, I am hurt. But at other times, like this, I totally understand your fear. I mean, what can you say?

you miss my meaning quill

im talking about meuller and whats happening with him and his credibility

ooooooooooo

youre not gonna like it

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

What are you talking about? Look over on the Trump Vent Thread. Last night, despite a wonderful football game on TV, I wrote a brilliant (if I do say so) thesis on Theodor Adorno's authoritarian personality thesis, and its applicability to the erratic behavior of Donald 'pussy-grabber' Trump.

Despite the intervening 14-hours, you have failed to respond. There are times when you don't respond to my more brilliant works, I am hurt. But at other times, like this, I totally understand your fear. I mean, what can you say?

you miss my meaning quill

im talking about meuller and whats happening with him and his credibility

ooooooooooo

youre not gonna like it

Like all RW arguments, it's all noise and fake look-alikes. I'm not reluctant to quote myself. I previously said:

Original Quill wrote:Conservative rhetoric is a collection of cliches, catch-phrases and juvenile jingos. Original thought, for them, is being able to memorize. They don’t analyze so much as they imitate …

The unoriginal RW doesn't so much criticize originally, but it looks for copy-cat distortions of LW arguments. It's called argument by mirror-image, or (technically) inverse metaphor. LW'ers, who do think in original thoughts, usually have a point; but the RW version is a look-alike. Flynn, who is a convicted felon, argues that Hillary broke the law. Truth means nothing to him; it's the look-alike position he touts. Hillary broke no law. There's even the anticipated metaphor: Trump thought he would lose, so he crafted a rigged-election argument even before the election. RW'ers do this because they have no capacity for original thought.

You claim to find some look-alike flaw in the Mueller investigation. I've heard all the claims from Trump's lawyers, themselves. Tell you what. Why don't you raise them, one-by-one, and I'll shoot them down, skeet-style. You're just setting yourself for another loss.

im talking about meuller and whats happening with him and his credibility

ooooooooooo

youre not gonna like it

Like all RW arguments, it's all noise and fake look-alikes. I'm not reluctant to quote myself. I previously said:

Original Quill wrote:Conservative rhetoric is a collection of cliches, catch-phrases and juvenile jingos. Original thought, for them, is being able to memorize. They don’t analyze so much as they imitate …

The unoriginal RW doesn't so much criticize originally, but it looks for copy-cat distortions of LW arguments. It's called argument by mirror-image, or (technically) inverse metaphor. LW'ers, who do think in original thoughts, usually have a point; but the RW version is a look-alike. Flynn, who is a convicted felon, argues that Hillary broke the law. Truth means nothing to him; it's the look-alike position he touts. Hillary broke no law. There's even the anticipated metaphor: Trump thought he would lose, so he crafted a rigged-election argument even before the election. RW'ers do this because they have no capacity for original thought.

You claim to find some look-alike flaw in the Mueller investigation. I've heard all the claims from Trump's lawyers, themselves. Tell you what. Why don't you raise them, one-by-one, and I'll shoot them down, skeet-style. You're just setting yourself for another loss.

im saying there is a flaw in his investigation , apart from he isnt going to find any collusion, what the issue is, is his credibility and integrity

he is compromised, the people he surrounds himself with, the stonewalling, the secrecy,the anti trump bias from agents who are supposed to be impartial servants of justice??

tut tut

the truth will out

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."

Like all RW arguments, it's all noise and fake look-alikes. I'm not reluctant to quote myself. I previously said:

The unoriginal RW doesn't so much criticize originally, but it looks for copy-cat distortions of LW arguments. It's called argument by mirror-image, or (technically) inverse metaphor. LW'ers, who do think in original thoughts, usually have a point; but the RW version is a look-alike. Flynn, who is a convicted felon, argues that Hillary broke the law. Truth means nothing to him; it's the look-alike position he touts. Hillary broke no law. There's even the anticipated metaphor: Trump thought he would lose, so he crafted a rigged-election argument even before the election. RW'ers do this because they have no capacity for original thought.

You claim to find some look-alike flaw in the Mueller investigation. I've heard all the claims from Trump's lawyers, themselves. Tell you what. Why don't you raise them, one-by-one, and I'll shoot them down, skeet-style. You're just setting yourself for another loss.

im saying there is a flaw in his investigation , apart from he isnt going to find any collusion, what the issue is, is his credibility and integrity

Not true. Leaders from both parties endorsed Mueller, who incidentally is a Republican himself. I happen to know Bob Mueller as he was former US Attorney for the Northern District of California. He was appointed as FBI Director, retired, and now is special counsel. What keeps Trump from firing Mueller, as he did Comey, is his support from Congress. It would instantly trigger impeachment proceedings from his own party.

sb wrote:he is compromised, the people he surrounds himself with, the stonewalling, the secrecy,the anti trump bias from agents who are supposed to be impartial servants of justice??

tut tut

the truth will out

There's no there, there. The claims are fraud and conspiracy in collusion with the Russians. The general allegations are conspiracy to commit computer fraud in violation of the CFAA, election tampering and conspiracy to sell official acts of government. Mueller has brought in outstanding specialists in financial crimes, computer fraud, income tax evasion, money laundering, racketeering, international fraud, real estate fraud and conspiracy law. Most of the agents have MBA and CPA degrees as well. Each one has decades of service in his particularly field, and has risen to the top of the Justice Department on his own merit.

What you are hearing is the wisdom of this old saying: if you don't have the law on your side, argue the facts; if you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law; and if you have neither the law nor the facts on your side, pound the table and make a lot of noise about how unfair the proceedings are.

Attacking Mueller is the only thing that the White House can do. And, of course, attacking, generally, is the only thing that Trump knows how to do. So, they attack the very institutions of law, and those who participate in law enforcement, not realizing that this is what all crooks do every time they get caught.

He should have made better choices, or are you going to try blame that on trump as well??

He blew his own integrity, he can no longer be trusted to be impartial

_________________“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."